Please define what you mean by fallible and infallible. The more thorough your definition the better. Give some examples of what it means to be fallible. Give some examples of what it means to be infallible.

Infallible : Cannot make mistakes/cannot be wrongFallible : Can make mistakes/be wrongExample : A fallible brain would guess your phone number. An infallible one would know.

Quote

Please define what you mean by finite and infinite. The more thorough your definition the better. Give some examples of what it means to be finite. Give some examples of what it means to be infinite.

Finite : Something that has a start an end.Infinite : Something without end and/or start.A line is infinite, a segment is not.

Quote

Based on how I (and speakers of the English language) define those words, your statements are false (even assuming there is a "God"). The states of being fallible or infallible are completely unrelated to the states of being finite or infinite.

Here is the relation I see between a infallible brain and infinity.To be infallible the brain must have answer to all the questions (omniscience), since there is an infinite number of questions, this brain must be infinite.

Please define what you mean by fallible and infallible. The more thorough your definition the better. Give some examples of what it means to be fallible. Give some examples of what it means to be infallible.

Infallible : Cannot make mistakes/cannot be wrongFallible : Can make mistakes/be wrongExample : A fallible brain would guess your phone number. An infallible one would know.

Your example is false. How does not actually knowing a phone number make someone fallible, according to your reasonable definition of being able to make mistakes or be wrong? If for example, I don't know your phone number and someone asks me what it is, I would answer "I don't know" which would be correct (neither a mistake or wrong). In that instance, I could be infallible and not know everything.

Omniscience is not related to fallability.

Now, I might agree that to be omniscient, one would have to be infinite.

You have not established any link between being infallible and being infinite and both remain mutually exclusive (neither being dependent on the other).

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Hahaha! You disagree. It cannot be false since *I* am the one defining.

Quote

How does not actually knowing a phone number make someone fallible, according to your reasonable definition of being able to make mistakes or be wrong?

Because it must know everything. I'll show you why an infallible brain cannot say "I don't know".

Quote

If for example, I don't know your phone number and someone asks me what it is, I would answer "I don't know" which would be correct (neither a mistake or wrong). In that instance, I could be infallible and not know everything.

What stops you there? Why only "not know" the phone number? Why simply "not know" everything?Do you think that an infallible brain equals an ignorant brain?

You had also mentioned "knowing the consequences". Recapping, the point is that we do NOT "know" the consequences. Every faith - and almost every believer - tells us a different thing as to what should be done, and what the consequences for doing (or not doing) those things will be.

Ok may be you don't know the consequences but you "know of" the consequences at least. Saying "No" to God (or in your case your conscience) means going to hell.

Yep, quite right. The consequence of not following the god espoused by Lukvance is to go to hell.

And if I do not ensure that my soul is lighter than a feather, Anubis will find it too heavy and I will be devoured by Ammit.

And if I do not make the salat five times a day, Allah will send me to hell.

And if I do not follow the path of the Buddha, I will be reincarnated badly.

And......blah de blah de blah. I am aware of the alleged consequences of a number of listed religions. Whoop de doo.

Where the problem lies is that there is no evidence to support any one faith over another. My "fallible brain" is unable to work out which of these faiths is the One True FaithTM, and which (all the others) is a load of made-up nonsense.

That's the point Luk. Saying "do this or else" is pointless if every other person is telling me "do something DIFFERENT or else". Can you understand the point I am making?

The fact that (if there is a god) it has chosen to make finding that knowledge extremely difficult.

Not that hard to find. You just found it. I'm pretty sure your parents taught you before me.

Way to miss the point. Its not "hearing about Christianity" that is the issue (although I note you gave a careful non-answer to the times and places where "hearing about Christianity" was difficult or impossible).

The point is being able to pick which of the - quite literally - thousands of gods is the "right" one to follow. I don't have a clue, Luk. You say one thing, Skeptic says another, Junebug says something else, and I have friends who are Pagans, Muslims, Jews and Ba'hai who all tell me something different again. THAT is the point about the knowledge being "hard to find", Luk. And once again, I'm wondering whether you have a real interest in answering serious questions.

You seem to lean toward there not being a hell, or people can avoid it just by being nice, but the reality according to your bible both New and Old Testament is that most people are going to hell.

Could you put more thought into this than simply a yes. I am trying to understand how you determine god to be benevolent, and loving his children, and creating a hell where for eternity you are tortured for finite crimes.

So you feel the punishment for not wanting to hang out with god is infinite torture. When your childhood friend drifted away from you in life you think a reasonable punishment is to torture them for as long as possible using a blowtorch and acid?

We are not talking about free will here, after you die god takes away free will and takes you hostage, tortures you with the maximum pain forever. He does this for crimes like not feeling guilty over sleeping with another man, working on sundays, and for not wanting to be his friend.

My son Age 6 told me he hates me because I told him to go to bed. I guess I should break out the old oxy acetylene tank and begin carving pieces off of him.

Apparently you think that there is no difference between "having knowledge" and "making no mistakes". I can see what you are trying to say, but - and I think this is a translation thing - what you are actually saying in English is not correct (though the way you are originally thinking it in French (?) may make perfect sense).

"Unable to make a mistake" and "knowing everything" are not synonymous terms, though the one certainly helps the other.

What intrigues me though is the suggestion you are making that your god is nothing more than a sophisticated robot, unable to make "choice" that we would recognise as such. If your god truly has this all-knowing, infallible brain that you are positing, then in each and every circumstances there is only one possible thought that his brain could have.

And if THAT is the case, then immediately your god is diminished. He loves us (if he does) because that is the only action possible for him, not because he chooses to do so. We cannot thank him for the world, or for existence, but because that is the only possible thing he could have done.

When you put your money in the vending machine, and press the button, and get the drink....do you thank it for what it has done? Of course not - because it did automatically the only thing it was possible for it to do. Remember what you were saying about free will, and about how lack of free will made "love" a whole lot less worthy? Well, by defining your god with an infallible and all-knowing brain, you've just done exactly that - you've radically diminished anything your god has or will ever say or do.

"Unable to make a mistake" and "knowing everything" are not synonymous terms, though the one certainly helps the other.

If you know everything past present and future then by definition you are not able to make a mistake are you? By definition you know the outcome of your action for good or bad and as such it must be intentional. So by knowing everything you must be by definition infalable, right?

Why is your god so petty and small minded? I thought "God" was forgiving and loving? Wait, I keep forgetting that "God" has bipolar disorder.

What do you want him to forgive you for (that he has not already forgive)?I think you guys don't understand what means saying "no" to God.God tells you "come with me to heaven" You tell him "no, you bipolar fool!". Then you wonder why you don't go to heaven?

This “God” character has told me nothing and behaves exactly as if it does not exist. SO, what or who exactly am I saying no to? What or who exactly am I describing as bipolar other than a mere idea? SO, it stands to reason that it is YOUR god that gives the impression of being petty and small minded as evidenced by your own questions.

Hahaha! You disagree. It cannot be false since *I* am the one defining.

You defined the words “Fallible” and “Infallible”. I accept your definitions of those two words. Your example however does not match your own definitions. Nowhere in your definitions is knowledge mentioned.

I kindly remind you of what I originally said when you responded to my requests for definitions:

If for example, I don't know your phone number and someone asks me what it is, I would answer "I don't know" which would be correct (neither a mistake or wrong). In that instance, I could be infallible and not know everything.

It does not matter how much knowledge is present. An infallible brain could know everything or it could know nothing at all, the only requirement (as you have correctly defined) that it must meet is that it cannot make a mistake or be wrong.

This is a straw-man question. An ignorant brain would presumably be a brain without any knowledge (or at least that is what I think you are intending to mean) and I’ve said or implied before that fallibility (or infallibility) does not have any link to level of knowledge. An ignorant brain could be fallible or infallible. An omniscient brain could be fallible or infallible. A fallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient. An infallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient.

I’m patiently waiting for you to show me “why an infallible brain cannot say I don’t know”.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

That's the point Luk. Saying "do this or else" is pointless if every other person is telling me "do something DIFFERENT or else". Can you understand the point I am making?

Yes. I have a counter point. God only ask you to do good, you don't even have to believe in him. So trust your fallible brain and continue to do good in the world. There should be only good consequence.

Quote

The point is being able to pick which of the - quite literally - thousands of gods is the "right" one to follow. I don't have a clue, Luk. You say one thing, Skeptic says another, Junebug says something else, and I have friends who are Pagans, Muslims, Jews and Ba'hai who all tell me something different again. THAT is the point about the knowledge being "hard to find", Luk. And once again, I'm wondering whether you have a real interest in answering serious questions.

I understand how this can be confusing. As I stated before, if you did not have your fallible brain you wouldn't be free. This confusion is the price of freedom. When you think about it, it is not a heavy price since as I stated, just trust your fallible brain and continue to do good in the world. There should be only good consequence. If you want to know more about good or bad, the church is here to guide you. You will always be the one ultimately choosing what is good or bad because you are free.

You seem to lean toward there not being a hell, or people can avoid it just by being nice, but the reality according to your bible both New and Old Testament is that most people are going to hell.

Could you put more thought into this than simply a yes. I am trying to understand how you determine god to be benevolent, and loving his children, and creating a hell where for eternity you are tortured for finite crimes.

I understand your feeling. I had the same one at the beginning. Then I learned about God and how wrongly I was interpreting the bible. This was all part of the catechism. I could gladly answer your question about that in another thread. Just send me the link in private.

So you feel the punishment for not wanting to hang out with god is infinite torture. When your childhood friend drifted away from you in life you think a reasonable punishment is to torture them for as long as possible using a blowtorch and acid?

Remember what you were saying about free will, and about how lack of free will made "love" a whole lot less worthy? Well, by defining your god with an infallible and all-knowing brain, you've just done exactly that - you've radically diminished anything your god has or will ever say or do.

First of all. God doesn't have a brain. Secondly he is infinite, I don't think our logic could even start to comprehend how he "works". Before being omniscient God is perfect. Since not being free (meaning following orders, meaning someone else giving orders) is not being perfect, then God is free. (and has free will)

I didn't catch your answer :Do you think that an infallible brain equals an ignorant brain?

What do you want him to forgive you for (that he has not already forgive)?

Quote

You defined the words “Fallible” and “Infallible”. I accept your definitions of those two words. Your example however does not match your own definitions. Nowhere in your definitions is knowledge mentioned.

Ok then, riddle me this : What is called the understanding of the difference between right and wrong? How can a brain cannot be wrong when it doesn't have the knowledge of what it is?Do you remember the name of that tree in the garden of Eden?

Quote

It does not matter how much knowledge is present. An infallible brain could know everything or it could know nothing at all, the only requirement (as you have correctly defined) that it must meet is that it cannot make a mistake or be wrong.

Could he have some things he knows and some he doesn't know? Does an infallible brain know right from wrong?

Quote

This is a straw-man question.

I don't think so. The way I understand it, your answer to my question is "Yes but it equals an omniscient brain too!"

Quote

An ignorant brain would presumably be a brain without any knowledge (or at least that is what I think you are intending to mean) and I’ve said or implied before that fallibility (or infallibility) does not have any link to level of knowledge. An ignorant brain could be fallible or infallible. An omniscient brain could be fallible or infallible. A fallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient. An infallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient.

Could you give us some examples please? to support your claims. When is an ignorant brain be fallible? and infallible? ...etc

Quote

I’m patiently waiting for you to show me “why an infallible brain cannot say I don’t know”.

I think that if a infallible brain say "I don't know" it means that it will answer that to all questions asked to it by "I don't know". Making it an ignorant brain.I don't think that an an ignorant brain is infallible.

Remember what you were saying about free will, and about how lack of free will made "love" a whole lot less worthy? Well, by defining your god with an infallible and all-knowing brain, you've just done exactly that - you've radically diminished anything your god has or will ever say or do.

First of all. God doesn't have a brain. Secondly he is infinite, I don't think our logic could even start to comprehend how he "works". Before being omniscient God is perfect. Since not being free (meaning following orders, meaning someone else giving orders) is not being perfect, then God is free. (and has free will)

No sorry, you don't get to wiggle away that easily. If god is "perfect", then he can make only ONE choice in a particular circumstance, yes? Because if he made a different choice, it would be the sub-optimal one, and hence not perfect.

Are you saying that your god will sometimes choose the sub-optimal decision? Then he is not perfect.Are you saying your god must always take the optimal decision? Then he has no free will.

SO, it stands to reason that it is YOUR god that gives the impression of being petty and small minded as evidenced by your own questions.

I understand how you feel. It simply comes from a misunderstanding of God. Let me ask you again :

What makes you think I have a misunderstanding of “God”? Is it because I don’t believe that this “God” exists? How do you know I don’t understand “God” better than you which is why I’ve realized that this “God” doesn’t exist?

What do you want him to forgive you for (that he has not already forgive)?

Your question is kind of loaded. Let me explain why.

First, I don’t want anything from “God”, in the same way that I don’t want anything from Santa Clause. Even if “God” did in fact exist, I wouldn’t want anything from “God” because I would still be left without ACTUALLY knowing anything about this “God”. I suppose that I would be interested in knowing more about this “God” (if that counts as a want). If I had direct communication with this “God”, then perhaps I would have wants, but it would probably be in the way I would want something from a rich friend, although those wants wouldn’t be for material things, they would be more like if I had a charity and would ask for a donation.

Secondly, why would I need to want or ask for forgiveness from this “God” (assuming its existence)? I suppose it might be a humble thing to do, but ultimately it shouldn’t be necessary right if this “God” has an unconditional forgiving nature. I guess that is the question, is this “God’s” forgiveness conditional or unconditional? Of course we’re talking about Christianity here which has many conditions as most religions do. Conditions are petty and small minded. Conditional forgiveness means if I say “No” then I go to hell. Unconditional forgiveness means I can say “No”, curse “God”, piss on “God” and still be forgiven and accepted into heaven. Of course, now we’re getting into the problems of “Hell” and “Heaven”. They are reward and punishment concepts only meant to influence positive behavior. What they end up being is the “In” group and “out” group and theists start classifying who is “in” and who is “out” which only serves a weird and sadistic self-sense of justice to soothe the fragile psyche.

Thirdly, how can you claim that this “God” has already forgiven when saying “No” means going to hell? Clearly if this “God” had already forgiven then this “God” would have accepted the person who said “No” into heaven. Additionally, wouldn’t “God” be completely aware of why someone says “No”, and what the agony and torment of being in Hell for eternity would mean, and thus accept that person anyway out of a loving nature? I guess you can say I’m SPAG, but IMO that is all I or anyone including all theists can do because we’re talking about a fictional character.

You defined the words “Fallible” and “Infallible”. I accept your definitions of those two words. Your example however does not match your own definitions. Nowhere in your definitions is knowledge mentioned.

Ok then, riddle me this : What is called the understanding of the difference between right and wrong?

Ethical.

I wonder, do you understand that the words “right” and “wrong” can mean two different things (two different concepts). For instance, If I take a math quiz with 10 questions and I answer 9 of the questions correctly (or right) then that means I answered 1 question incorrectly (or wrong). This is what is meant by the word “wrong” in the definition of “Fallible” (capable of making a mistake or being wrong). In this instance, “wrong” means incorrect.

Alternatively, right and wrong can be moral concepts like good and evil. For instance it is good and right to help someone in need or it is evil and wrong to murder someone. Helping someone in need or murdering someone are actions, not true or false answers on a quiz. Right and wrong as moral concepts fall under the category of ethics. Furthermore, how would you define murder? I would define murder as deliberately killing someone or unlawfully killing someone. Is murdering someone a mistake? I would answer no because it would be deliberate. Mistakenly killing someone would be an accident. Is killing wrong? One of the ten commandments is “thou shall not murder” or “though shall not kill”. Lukvance, if your game of semantics when using the word “wrong” in defining Fallible is correct then you would prove that the “God” of the Bible is fallible and not “God”.

How can a brain cannot be wrong when it doesn't have the knowledge of what it is?

Now you’re getting into whether “right” and “wrong” as moral concepts even really exist, or whether they are objective or subjective. If “wrong” as a moral concept is objective, then you might be right and omniscience is necessary. However, you’re no longer talking about being infallible, as infallible means to be capable of making a mistake or being wrong (erroneous).

This is pointless since your interpretation of the word “wrong” when defining the words “fallible” and “infallible” is incorrect.

I assume you mean in the Bible, which I consider to be a fictional story. In that story, the name of the tree in the garden of Eden was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (or something similar to that I believe). This however is related to ethics, not being fallible or infallible.

It does not matter how much knowledge is present. An infallible brain could know everything or it could know nothing at all, the only requirement (as you have correctly defined) that it must meet is that it cannot make a mistake or be wrong.

I don't think so. The way I understand it, your answer to my question is "Yes but it equals an omniscient brain too!"

Now I have to question whether you understand what the word “equals” means, because if you did understand its meaning, then you would know my answer was no. “Equals” is absolute. An infallible brain can’t both be ignorant and omniscient. Omniscience is the absences of ignorance.

An ignorant brain would presumably be a brain without any knowledge (or at least that is what I think you are intending to mean) and I’ve said or implied before that fallibility (or infallibility) does not have any link to level of knowledge. An ignorant brain could be fallible or infallible. An omniscient brain could be fallible or infallible. A fallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient. An infallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient.

Could you give us some examples please? to support your claims. When is an ignorant brain be fallible? and infallible? ...etc

A fallible brain which is ignorant doesn’t know everything or anything depending on how ignorant it is (completely or partially), however because it is fallible, it can mistakenly believe it does know something which it does not. This is the state of human beings. Our brains are fallible and ignorant (completely or partially). If a fallible brain which is ignorant (completely or partially) guesses, then this would be a mistake and guessing would be wrong since it doesn’t actually know the answer. Additionally, a fallible brain may mistakenly or wrongly process the information it receives from the senses, thus making the knowledge it does have more suspect.

An infallible brain which is ignorant (completely or partially) will not make the mistake of believing it knows something which it does not. It will never guess and only provide the answer or information which it does actually know. If it does not know then it will state that it doesn’t know. Additionally, an infallible brain will never mistakenly or wrongly process the information it receives from the senses, thus making the knowledge it does have more accurate.

A fallible brain which is omniscient could mistakenly or wrongly provide the incorrect answer despite knowing everything. This might be a paradox though which would mean I would be wrong in claiming that a fallible brain could be omniscient. This is assuming an omniscient brain would know that it was going to make a mistake, of course if it knew it was going to make a mistake, then it wouldn’t make a mistake, thus it wouldn’t know that it was going to make a mistake.

Obviously an infallible brain which is omniscient would never make a mistake and always provide the correct answer or information.

So, I’ll have to think about the fallible brain which is omniscient, but I stand by the other 3 concepts as they are accurate.

I’m patiently waiting for you to show me “why an infallible brain cannot say I don’t know”.

I think that if a infallible brain say "I don't know" it means that it will answer that to all questions asked to it by "I don't know". Making it an ignorant brain.I don't think that an an ignorant brain is infallible.

If an ignorant brain, correctly answers that it doesn’t know, how is that a mistake or wrong? Is it wrong to be correct?

Why can’t an infallible brain which is ignorant know who pitched for the Houston Astros baseball team yesterday after having watched the game? A fallible brain might mistakenly remember who pitched and answer incorrectly whereas an infallible brain would remember correctly and answer correctly.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

If god is "perfect", then he can make only ONE choice in a particular circumstance, yes?

Yes

Quote

Are you saying that your god will sometimes choose the sub-optimal decision? Then he is not perfect.Are you saying your god must always take the optimal decision? Then he has no free will.

Neither I am saying that sometimes he will chose neither.

Inaction is itself a choice. In a particular circumstance, if there is an optimal choice that god does NOT take, then by definition he has made a sub-optimal response - which a perfect being would not do.

To be clear - are you saying that your god always knows the best thing to do (or not to do), but sometimes decides "actually, I will choose to do something else, something that I know is a worse choice"? Then he is fallible. For how can "deliberately choosing to do the wrong thing despite knowing the consequences" NOT be a fallible thing to do? It is, after all, what you are using as part of your proof of human-brain fallibility.

But I'm quite prepared to accept that I have missed something. So by all means give an example of a situation where god (the perfect being with full knowledge) knows the best thing to do; does NOT do that thing; but has still managed to take the best (perfect) action?

So you feel the punishment for not wanting to hang out with god is infinite torture. When your childhood friend drifted away from you in life you think a reasonable punishment is to torture them for as long as possible using a blowtorch and acid?

No.

Elaborate, because that is exactly what the bible says both new and old testament. You will be tossed in a lake of fire for not believing and you have said

Quote

I think you guys don't understand what means saying "no" to God.

for simply disagreeing that you wish to hang out with god you are tortured. Catechism may try to put an apologistic spin on it but with out carefully crafting the insanity of the bible you are left with the reality of the words. The bible says you go to hell for not believing. Hell is not simply the absense of existence it is infinite torture for infinite duration.

Quote

Matthew 25:31-33;41-46

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.......Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. "

So for the crime of not believing, you are tortured for eternity. To sweeten the pot, god only clearly reveals himself after the choice of sending you to hell is made. There is no introduction, expanation and chance to atone, the decision is made if you make the mistake of not believing and die you go to hell.

If you believe and don't particularly like god, you go to hell.

Imagine if I killed all those kids who thought I was a geek and did not want to be my friends.

God may be all knowing, and all powerful, but by the standards he puts forth to us he is a sinner.

He is vain - He wants people to worship him.he is jealous - He tortures you if you dont want to be his friend or if you like someone more.

These may not be sins when you reach gods level but according to the rules set forth in the bible they are sins for us and apparent traits of the god described. He may well have the 7 deadly sins all attributed to him. Although I think I am not too sure about lust.

*** Again his tendency to be described as having un-repentently displayed most of the 7 deadly sins, I have to say that the bible either proves god to be a sinner or the bible is a work bronze age middle eastern men and subject to their flaws and cultural norms at the time.***

Kinda like a 1850's abolitionist in the south, Culturally pre-disposed to think of blacks as Ni----s, somewhat slow but they would put a good spin on them.

A pseudo quote might be "Ni----s deserve to be free, they are almost human and should not be treated like they are. I know lots of good Ni----s who I can even have a conversation with" You can see how a message intended to be positive tempered by culture and time period.

I see this all over the bible, you can see the introduction of pagan traditions, deep seated cultural misogyny, vengence, as if it was someone brought up in that time and place trying to say something nice and progressive. I see man all over the bible and very little evidence of the devine.

I wonder, do you understand that the words “right” and “wrong” can mean two different things (two different concepts). For instance, If I take a math quiz with 10 questions and I answer 9 of the questions correctly (or right) then that means I answered 1 question incorrectly (or wrong). This is what is meant by the word “wrong” in the definition of “Fallible” (capable of making a mistake or being wrong). In this instance, “wrong” means incorrect.

A quizz! I hope I had thought of that earlier. It makes it easier to prove that an infallible brain must be omniscient.As we agree the infallible brain must get 10 out of 10 answers. As it is the case for most quizz, the answer "I don't know" is not available. (it defies the purpose of the quizz)How would am infallible brain get 10/10 on every quizz if he is not omniscient?

To be clear - are you saying that your god always knows the best thing to do (or not to do), but sometimes decides "actually, I will choose to do something else, something that I know is a worse choice"? Then he is fallible. For how can "deliberately choosing to do the wrong thing despite knowing the consequences" NOT be a fallible thing to do? It is, after all, what you are using as part of your proof of human-brain fallibility.But I'm quite prepared to accept that I have missed something. So by all means give an example of a situation where god (the perfect being with full knowledge) knows the best thing to do; does NOT do that thing; but has still managed to take the best (perfect) action?

Hehe first of all, thank you. You made my brain run really hard with this line of questioning.God will not stop and think "what could I do?" he will simply do and what he does will become the perfect action AFTER he did it.It is really hard for me to perceive choices being made in a "world" without time.

Elaborate, because that is exactly what the bible says both new and old testament. You will be tossed in a lake of fire for not believing and you have said

Quote

I think you guys don't understand what means saying "no" to God.

for simply disagreeing that you wish to hang out with god you are tortured. Catechism may try to put an apologistic spin on it but with out carefully crafting the insanity of the bible you are left with the reality of the words. The bible says you go to hell for not believing. Hell is not simply the absense of existence it is infinite torture for infinite duration.

This is how I believe the afterlife goes.I die.My soul go "up" to st-Peter who ask me - Do you want to go in? Your sins have been forgiven- Yes of course!I go in heaven.Or - Do you want to go in? Your sins have been forgiven- No! You liar, they are not forgiven I haven't done enough for them to be forgiven.I go to purgatory.Or- Do you want to go in? Your sins have been forgiven- No! Who are you anyway? Why do you want me to be with that God who *insert here reason for not believing in God*?I go to hell.As you can see there is no judgement from God or anyone but yourself.Of course the Catholic church cannot pronounce categorically on the subject since there is no one who "came back" But all of those NDE will agree with my version of things. No pressure, no judgement, pure freedom.

I wonder, do you understand that the words “right” and “wrong” can mean two different things (two different concepts). For instance, If I take a math quiz with 10 questions and I answer 9 of the questions correctly (or right) then that means I answered 1 question incorrectly (or wrong). This is what is meant by the word “wrong” in the definition of “Fallible” (capable of making a mistake or being wrong). In this instance, “wrong” means incorrect.

A quizz! I hope I had thought of that earlier. It makes it easier to prove that an infallible brain must be omniscient.As we agree the infallible brain must get 10 out of 10 answers. As it is the case for most quizz, the answer "I don't know" is not available. (it defies the purpose of the quizz)How would am infallible brain get 10/10 on every quizz if he is not omniscient?

While the giver of the quiz would likely mark "I Don't Know" as incorrect, technically not writing anything would be correct and accurate. If someone doesn't know the answer and doesn't attempt to answer, how is that a mistake?

This also gives the quiz giver a better idea of what the quiz taker actually knows and can teach the quiz taker. A person with a fallible brain would try to guess, thus leaving the quiz giver no way of knowing if the quiz taker just guessed, made a mistake, didn't know how to solve the problem or didn't know what the problem was to begin with.

You kind of missed the overal point as your misconception of "wrong" in the context of defining fallible and infallible is confusing your reasoning.

EDIT:

I'll make this easier.

Explain to me how it is a mistake or wrong to admit lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking.

I personally can't think of why it would be. I'm trying to. To me, the mistake would be not admiting lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking. How can both admitting and not admitting a lack of knowlege be a mistake or wrong? If both are a mistake or wrong, then simply not knowing everything is a mistake or wrong.

Why even use the words mistake or wrong when defining fallible and infallible? Just say "fallible = not omniscient" and "infallible = omniscient". Further still, why use the words fallible and infallible? Just say "not omniscient" and "omniscient".

SO the subject of the thread becomes "Why [God] made me without an omniscient brain?

NOW, if that were the question, then your answer would probably be correct, Lukvance. In order to have an omniscient brain, it would probably have to be infinite.

HOWEVER, I doubt that was the orignial question. Why we don't have an omniscient brain is obvious for a number of reasons and not worth answering. But why our brains are capable of making mistakes and errors, thus making it difficult to make accurate decisions on what is best for ourselves and others, is an interesting question, one which I doubt theists have an answer for (besides the traditional "The Fall" didit or something along those lines).

« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 03:55:48 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

This is how I believe the afterlife goes.I die.My soul go "up" to st-Peter who ask me - Do you want to go in? Your sins have been forgiven- Yes of course!I go in heaven.Or - Do you want to go in? Your sins have been forgiven- No! You liar, they are not forgiven I haven't done enough for them to be forgiven.I go to purgatory.Or- Do you want to go in? Your sins have been forgiven- No! Who are you anyway? Why do you want me to be with that God who *insert here reason for not believing in God*?I go to hell.As you can see there is no judgement from God or anyone but yourself.Of course the Catholic church cannot pronounce categorically on the subject since there is no one who "came back" But all of those NDE will agree with my version of things. No pressure, no judgement, pure freedom.

If you're right then no one would go to hell then.

Any atheist who after having died watches as they float above their body and then zip on up to the front gates of Heaven where this "Peter" asks if they would like to go into Heaven is going to answer at least "sure". After all, they just received some solid evidence that there is an afterlife.

What about people who have done terrible things? Are you saying that Adolf Hitler is in heaven? Do you think he is going to say "no" to being allowed through the gates of heaven? No, his warped mind is going to think this is his reward for being an "awesome leader".

In fact, everyone is going to think that. Everyone who shows up in front of "Peter" is going to think they are worthy of the invite and go into heaven. Then again, maybe it is a trick question? Maybe those who think they are not worthy and say "no" are the ones who actually get to go into heaven?

This is all pointless though.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

God will not stop and think "what could I do?" he will simply do and what he does will become the perfect action AFTER he did it.

Then - once again - there is no reason to worship this god, because as you've just said, whatever his action, it will automatically have been the perfect action. God feeds the world, god picks his nose, god stops all rapists, god scratches his eyebrows....it's all one and the same. When whatever action is taken become by definition perfect, then no praise can attach to that being.

Especially since - as you said - god does not think and consider, he just reacts without need for thought. Sorry Lukvance, but the more you describe your god, the less worthy of praise or worship it becomes.